• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sachin Tendulkar vs Matthew Hayden

Who was the better test batsman?

  • Total voters
    35
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Here's the TL;DR for this argument:

For modern (1970 and later debut) openers I've got only Gavaskar above Hayden, all else are far below.

For modern middle order bats above Tendulkar:

Definitely Brian Lara, Steve Smith, Viv Richards, Sangakkara
Possibly Javed Miandad, Joe Root, Jacques Kallis, Greg Chappell, Rahul Dravid, Kane Williamson.

Basically, he doesn't separate himself from the pack of his competitors, the way that one of the 2 great openers of the modern era does.

And no, to me inconsistent longevity (aided by predominantly flat pitches), is not a way to separate yourself from batsmen with the similar or higher levels of production than you.

That's the strongest case I can make against Sachin. In honesty, I don't feel THAT strongly, other than I don't think he provides all this excess value over any other of these top tier batsmen, and a small grouping of them I'm pretty sure are clearly better, controlling for era/conditions, etc.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
And no, to me inconsistent longevity (aided by predominantly flat pitches), is not a way to separate yourself from batsmen with the similar or higher levels of production than you.
Click to expand...
So, you'd rate Tendulkar higher if he averaged 50 each year for 15 years and that was his career?
 
M

Majestic

U19 Captain
Last 30 years :-

Steve Smith
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting
Joe Root

Kumar Sangakkara
Jacques Kallis
Rahul Dravid
Virat Kohli
Steve Waugh

That's my top 10.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
ataraxia said:
So, you'd rate Tendulkar higher if he averaged 50 each year for 15 years and that was his career?
Click to expand...
I'd rate him higher if he separated himself from his peers in more of those years that he played.

He started off kind of slow (understandable given age), then accelerated in the 90s to be one of the most prolific batsmen. However his performance then slumped in the early/mid 200s, at exactly that time when pitches became flatter and he should have been cashing in. Then he had a recovery, and another dip towards the end of his career.

His final average looks pretty, but I don't think it's as good, when you consider where his home matches were. The closer comparisons (because no one matched the full span of his career longevity) are Dravid and Kallis and I don't think he really separates himself from either. Kallis in particular has more output, with more challenging home conditions.

At the end of the day, as artistic as we consider batting to be, the ideal is of Bradman, a run scoring automaton, who never gave his wicket cheaply. So a batsman is simply measured on how he could separate from his peers on that output. Sachin was at or below the level of his top peers often enough throughout his career that I don't see the separation from peers based on output meriting his inflated (Best Besides Bradman candidate) reputation. The ones I mentioned in my top list, guys like Lara, and especially Steve Smith that higher level of performance separating from peers lasts the greatest portion of their careers. Longevity helps Sachin separate himself with the Davids or Punters of the world, but he clearly won't reach the level of the top 4 modern middle order bats in my list.

(As an aside, longevity in pace bowling, a much harder discipline in which to stay fit and rack up Tests, doesn't seems to help McGrath separate himself from, for example, Marshall. I have no idea why it would be this great l, irrevocable trump card for Tendulkar. Measure the quality of those periods and show separation from peers, that's what could convince me, not this kind of stale "muh 200 Tests!" lark.)
 
Last edited:
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
The closer comparisons (because no one matched the full span of his career longevity) are Dravid and Kallis and I don't think he really separates himself from either.
Click to expand...
hmm... I think there might be a hidden reason in that sentence for Tendulkar being far greater than Kallis and Dravid.
shortpitched713 said:
At the end of the day, as artistic as we consider batting to be, the ideal is of Bradman, a run scoring automaton, who never gave his wicket cheaply. So a batsman is simply measured on how he could separate from his peers on that output.
Click to expand...
I mean this isn't even correct. The ideal to never give one's wicket away cheaply is far beyond reach for anyone, and that included Bradman who was inclined to great highs and lows and a general lack of consistency. I guess I don't get how you rate Lara as greater than Tendulkar given that for a length of time equivalent to Lara's whole career, Tendulkar averaged 59. And he still had a second peak to come. It seems like you're punishing him for how long he played under some IMO mistaken notion that career consistency is the holy grail.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
ataraxia said:
hmm... I think there might be a hidden reason in that sentence for Tendulkar being far greater than Kallis and Dravid.

I mean this isn't even correct. The ideal to never give one's wicket away cheaply is far beyond reach for anyone, and that included Bradman who was inclined to great highs and lows and a general lack of consistency. I guess I don't get how you rate Lara as greater than Tendulkar given that for a length of time equivalent to Lara's whole career, Tendulkar averaged 59. And he still had a second peak to come. It seems like you're punishing him for how long he played under some IMO mistaken notion that career consistency is the holy grail.
Click to expand...
The not so "hidden" factor, is that I don't rate Indian home conditions (nor Pakistani ones, for that matter), as I saw the procession of snooze Tests it produced, especially in the 2000s. Why does Sanga outproduce Tendulkar during his own career, in more challenging home conditions?

Those are the kind of questions I mean, when I say "not separating from peers".
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
shortpitched713 said:
I'd rate him higher if he separated himself from his peers in more of those years that he played.

He started off kind of slow (understandable given age), then accelerated in the 90s to be one of the most prolific batsmen. However his performance then slumped in the early/mid 200s, at exactly that time when pitches became flatter and he should have been cashing in. Then he had a recovery, and another dip towards the end of his career.

His final average looks pretty, but I don't think it's as good, when you consider where his home matches were. The closer comparisons (because no one matched the full span of his career longevity) are Dravid and Kallis and I don't think he really separates himself from either. Kallis in particular has more output, with more challenging home conditions.

At the end of the day, as artistic as we consider batting to be, the ideal is of Bradman, a run scoring automaton, who never gave his wicket cheaply. So a batsman is simply measured on how he could separate from his peers on that output. Sachin was at or below the level of his top peers often enough throughout his career that I don't see the separation from peers based on output meriting his inflated (Best Besides Bradman candidate) reputation. The ones I mentioned in my top list, guys like Lara, and especially Steve Smith that higher level of performance separating from peers lasts the greatest portion of their careers. Longevity helps Sachin separate himself with the Davids or Punters of the world, but he clearly won't reach the level of the top 4 modern middle order bats in my list.

(As an aside, longevity in pace bowling, a much harder discipline in which to stay fit and rack up Tests, doesn't seems to help McGrath separate himself from, for example, Marshall. I have no idea why it would be this great l, irrevocable trump card for Tendulkar. Measure the quality of those periods and show separation from peers, that's what could convince me, not this kind of stale "muh 200 Tests!" lark.)
Click to expand...
this is an argument borne out of an agenda to prove that Tendulkar is overrated rather than trying to find out a unbiased conclusion when Dravid who you consider his equal has holes in his record too and has been overrated to death after retirement by normies and hipsters alike because of other reasons

Smith in particular is egregious, Tendulkar averages more than him from 1992 to 2004 while having a better strike rate having played a similar number of matches. if you bring India’s flat pitches into the conversation then what of Smith’s own home pitches that have been a boon to him? sure Smith faced challenging conditions away from home but the argument that Tendulkar faced better bowlers especially in the 90s always comes from everyone

this just goes back to giving too many points to players based on how well their peers performed or sucked which is just bad theorycrafting to follow. are Latham and Warner atgs because they were moderately better than every other opener who sucked bad in comparison in the pre pandemic years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top